GPL virus...

[IAHM-COL]

I meant that if Frank tries to slap a CC license on a work that is derivative of a GPL and GPL doesn't allow it, then the fact that he did it anyway without the right to do so doesn't give you any rights. It was his error, but it was an error.

That's exactly where our opinions do differ.
I can accept Frank's License. Nothing prevents me too. (even the case that I suspect his license is incorrect, I can still accept it)
I can also not accept Frank's license. And consequently, rejecting Frank's whole work (not using it, not copying it, not modifying it, not distributing it, Practical Example == Vitos' MiG 15).

I cannot challenge Frank's License (in court). Nor change it.

[KL-666]

Really, gpl is simple if you just gpl your code when you use gpl code. Trying to find niches is really not suitable for mere mortals. Even lawyers dispute different standpoints. So i would keep it simple. If i use gpl code, i am always prepared to gpl my code. If i want to license differently, i use no gpl code at all.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

I love that simple world KL666.. but that's the talk on this thread.

Many CC planes in FG can be alleged to contain GPL code on them, or depend on GPL libraries (Nasal)

Can they stand as CC?

My point is: FG (the original copyright holder) decides. If FG does not challenge those CC contents, then YES, they can.

[Lydiot]

I meant that if Frank tries to slap a CC license on a work that is derivative of a GPL and GPL doesn't allow it, then the fact that he did it anyway without the right to do so doesn't give you any rights. It was his error, but it was an error.

That's exactly where our opinions do differ.
I can accept Frank's License. Nothing prevents me too. (even the case that I suspect his license is incorrect, I can still accept it)
I can also not accept Frank's license. And consequently, rejecting Frank's whole work (not using it, not copying it, not modifying it, not distributing it).

I cannot challenge Frank's License (in court). Nor change it.

You use the word "accept", but what does that mean to you legally?

I'm saying that you're not given any rights via licensing just because Frank says he gives it to you (by using CC) IF he is wrong in doing so.

There's another way of looking at it in that if that's not the case you've just found the biggest loophole in copyright history (yeah I'm exaggerating). All it'd take is a hobo with nothing to lose, give him whatever material you want to change the license on, have him change the license to what you want and then give it back to you. Then any legal preceding would go after the hobo but any subsequent works would now be "legal". I really don't think it holds up logically or legally.

[IAHM-COL]

yes. Because it does not work that way

But, also, read the termination clauses of GPL (particularly versions 2 and 3)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

8. Termination.

...

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License.

and

10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

...

You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

___

So, really, there are big distinctions between what happen and how copyright is applied in ALL RIGHTS RESERVED works (did you use a movie as example before?), and GPL LICENSED, material. Even thou, both are issues related to copyright law.

[Lydiot]

I honestly don't think a court would see it that way.

The way it reads to me is that the license is valid as long as it's not violated. As such Frank can take my Ferrari v1 and give out to 100 people, and if he then violates the GPL I slapped on Ferrari v1 those 100 people aren't affected, because they didn't get content where the license had been violated. It does not, as far as I can see, mean that his ver 2 which was in violation of GPL is somehow now kosher by virtue of having been distributed. I don't think that would hold up in court and it sounds nonsensical to me.

In order to redistribute derivative work you need the GPL license, we agree, yes? So if you have a GPL license you can distribute under that license. If you don't apply the license, then the license is terminated. So how can you distribute copies of a license that is by definition terminated?

"Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License."

[IAHM-COL]

I'll say I agree, but only if that license gets terminated. Not before.

Other than that is saying we can't use aircrafts others have willingly decided to license as CC, while FG clearly had agreed upon that.

If not, please, then, clarify me where do you actually want to get here?

[Lydiot]

I'll say I agree, but only if that license gets terminated. Not before.

Right. It's just that nobody terminates the license, it is terminated automatically as it is violated. Everything else is just a matter of practicality, as in whether or not anyone complains about it and goes to court etc.

Other than that is saying we can't use aircrafts others have willingly decided to license as CC, while FG clearly had agreed upon that.

So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that "FG" essentially granted the right to use CC on content which originally was GPL, is that correct?

[IAHM-COL]

Right. It's just that nobody terminates the license, it is terminated automatically as it is violated. Everything else is just a matter of practicality, as in whether or not anyone complains about it and goes to court etc.

As I understand this is not true. Only a court ruling can actually determine whether the license is terminated. Not such "automatic" action occurs --as far as I am informed. Particularly you can't scream (as Thorsten thinks) "Copyright violation" and be that "the rule of law". In such situations a whole procedure applies: The infringed party (the real copyright owner) contacts the group or person making the violation, requesting a cease of action. Then he needs to wait some time (I dont recall if its 30 days or more). After this time, then the copyright owner (and only the copyright owner) can initiate legal action. Then, courts decides whether a license was effectively violated, and issues the correctives necessary.
Suspicion is not enough to terminate a license. FUD is not enough to terminate licenses. Infinite Forum chats are not enough to terminate licenses. Termination is not automatic, or triggered by suspicions, either. Law exists. And courts execute.

So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that "FG" essentially granted the right to use CC on content which originally was GPL, is that correct?

Not necesarily. But clearly FG has not, as I am aware, preventing aircrafts developers to license their work CC, even thou they need to reuse code, or use and copy libraries (such as nasal). As Simon told you much earlier in this thread, FG needs to make a "class" decision, and it cannot come "chosy" onto how to apply licenses here. FG can't say: This is OK for an aircraft developer (Like XSaint, or Buck) but not ok for another (Like IAHM-COL or Bomber). Once they decide upon that consistently, and without selectivity, they can make any path acceptable.

So far, from what I've seen, FG and the core in general had never disqualified, prevented or limited CC aircraft under allegations of GPL violation of the set.xmls or nasal libraries. That's that.

As such, I have no problem then to accept such aircraft (and consider doing so legally), as do many others that download them, fly them, or distribute them (by any means, included, an email to a friend).

[Lydiot]

Right. It's just that nobody terminates the license, it is terminated automatically as it is violated. Everything else is just a matter of practicality, as in whether or not anyone complains about it and goes to court etc.

As I understand this is not true. Only a court ruling can actually determine whether the license is terminated. Not such "automatic" action occurs --as far as I am informed.

Well, I think we probably have to be more careful with the words we use then. My understanding is that it's one thing to have rights and another whether or not actions are taken to clarify whether or not those rights exist. If I write a book I have copyrights on that book and it doesn't matter if I do anything or nothing. I still have that right. No action has to be taken. Likewise I think it could and is argued that a court ruling simply clarifies whether or not the rights of the license ceased to apply to a particular person due to his actions. It isn't the court's ruling that makes the rights go away, it is the ruling that makes it clear that the rights ceased to apply due to certain actions.

I mean, perhaps there's a better way to phrase it, but I hope you get my point.

The infringed party (the real copyright owner) contacts the group or person making the violation, requesting a cease of action. Then he needs to wait some time (I dont recall if its 30 days or more). After this time, the the copyright owner (and only the copyright owner) can initiate legal action. Then, courts decides whether a license [i]was[/i] effectively violated, and issues the correctives necessary.
Suspicion is not enough to terminate a license. FUD is not enough to terminate licenses. Infinite Forum chats are not enough to terminate licenses. Termination is not automatic, or triggered by suspicions, either. Law exists. And courts executes.

I still think that's a different issue. A court issuing a ruling that someone is to cease doing something is one thing, and the basis for that is a different issue. But look at it this way: Is anything legal until any individual is found guilty in court? Because I think that's what you're implying, and I don't think it's correct. At the very least there's a great deal of settled law where there's no ambiguity left. If I take some stuff in a store and put it in my pocket and leave without paying it's not legal until I'm prosecuted and convicted, if I am prosecuted and convicted it's because it was illegal for me to do so in the first place. So the law applies regardless of whether or not the court actually rules on something.

As far as I understand it if you slap GPL on some content then anyone can take it and use it, correct? You don't need explicit permission. So that right is inherent in the license as long as the user adheres to what the license says. It's only reasonable to say that the same applies to whether or not the license ceases to give the person rights. It does, if it's violated. No court needed for that to be true.

To prove that it's been violated is a separate issue.

So far, from what I've seen, FG and the core in general had never disqualified, prevented or limited CC aircraft under allegations of GPL violation. That's that.

As such, I have no problem then to accept such aircraft, as do many others that download them, fly them, or distribute them (by any means, included, an email to a friend).

I understand that position, and I can see the logic in that.